My program would reject (ignore) any part specification longer than one
letter.
Your proposal could lead to ambiguous part specifications, if one name
matched part of another name.
I can see the need for the part specification to have two 'parts', one
the single letter identifier to be used in
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 10:00:20AM -0700, Toby Rider wrote:
I'll communicate with the folks at mail-archive and let them know how to
get a feed from the list again, now that I've tightened up security and
squashed the spam problem (for now).
Thanks for doing that, it was getting to be a
Neil Jennings wrote (about Remo proposal):
My program would reject (ignore) any part specification longer than
one letter.
Your proposal could lead to ambiguous part specifications, if one name
matched part of another name.
Remo proposal (below) avoids ambiguity by distinguishing between
Em 25 Oct 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
My program would reject (ignore) any part specification longer than one
letter.
Your proposal could lead to ambiguous part specifications, if one name
matched part of another name.
Remo's proposal avoids the ambiguity by distinguishing the
